Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I suspect that one of the reasons why my credibility method has (in my opinion) generally worked so well (an example was given in this latest test) is simply the fact that people have, to some extent, cooperated, and decided to not make things too hard for me. But, if people are really intent on deceiving, and for example, give a wrong answer in a seemingly good text, there is really nothing I can do about this. But, like I said, it is rare. Perhaps they could do this when they feel angry for some reason (which reason?), this is uncommon though.

The credibility works so well because you can cherry pick out the answers.

Anyone that gives you an answer that does not conform to your delusion is deemed as be deceiving and not credible.

But lets try a non perverse lie test, Same deal, Two truths and one lie.

1: I have spent an hour in a grave.

2: I got 15 stitches at a family reunion in England.

3: I have a collection of over 500 animal skulls.

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

I suspect that one of the reasons why my credibility method has (in my opinion) generally worked so well (an example was given in this latest test) is simply the fact that people have, to some extent, cooperated, and decided to not make things too hard for me. But, if people are really intent on deceiving, and for example, give a wrong answer in a seemingly good text, there is really nothing I can do about this. But, like I said, it is rare. Perhaps they could do this when they feel angry for some reason (which reason?), this is uncommon though.

And here yet again is an explicit admission of Michel's bias, and hence the pointlessness of this thread: the starting assumption is that everyone who gives the wrong answer is being deliberately deceptive. The possibility that everybody is just making a random guess is not one Michel will ever seriously consider, so his test protocol will always be flawed.

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

And here yet again is an explicit admission of Michel's bias, and hence the pointlessness of this thread: the starting assumption is that everyone who gives the wrong answer is being deliberately deceptive. The possibility that everybody is just making a random guess is not one Michel will ever seriously consider, so his test protocol will always be flawed.

He also admitted that he only gets pseudo-positve results if he stacks the method in his favour. Didn't want to play once th playing field was levelled...

__________________What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Give it all up. Michel is playing with a stacked-deck short a few dozen cards.

__________________"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

I once roller-skated 26 miles for charity.
I have played a country & western gig with a Muppet.
While burning rubbish in my back garden, I was once asked the way to the beach by an Australian nun.

Michel, can you detect which of these is a lie?

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

I once roller-skated 26 miles for charity.
I have played a country & western gig with a Muppet.
While burning rubbish in my back garden, I was once asked the way to the beach by an Australian nun.

Michel, can you detect which of these is a lie?

Dave

Well, perhaps all three statements are lies, maybe because, as a smart man, you have understood very well the spirit of this forum, and you try to fit in .

By the way, I have now found out that the recent and (apparently) good post by cullennz:

Quote:

Think it's pretty simple.

I'm psychic and chose to read Michael H's mind.

Took me a while as the signal was weak

(he posted this after giving a correct and credible answer in my latest telepathy test. Congratulations, cullennz)
has now been relegated to the AAH section of the forum by the Censorship Team. I deplore this decision.

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

I suspect that one of the reasons why my credibility method has (in my opinion) generally worked so well (an example was given in this latest test) is simply the fact that people have, to some extent, cooperated, and decided to not make things too hard for me. But, if people are really intent on deceiving, and for example, give a wrong answer in a seemingly good text, there is really nothing I can do about this. But, like I said, it is rare. Perhaps they could do this when they feel angry for some reason (which reason?), this is uncommon though.

No, Michel, that is not what you have said. You said:

Originally Posted by Michel H

The reason is probably psychological, the goal of many posters here is probably to try to perpetuate the situation of collective lie with respect to my (apparent) telepathy, so learning there is a 25% probability to answer correctly (even when no telepathy is involved at all) already does make many people here very nervous.

Originally Posted by Michel H

Y. Because of a (in my opinion) general lack of honesty in telepathy matters, I always carefully examine credibilities of answers and statements (and I also try to investigate the credibilities of human beings who make these statements).

Originally Posted by Michel H

However, I am a little concerned about your motivation. Could it be that you are concerned about "not betraying Team Skepticism", something like that (perhaps a kind of patriotism, like when a citizen or a soldier decides to remain loyal to their country, even when they are actually convinced that it is dead wrong)?

Originally Posted by Michel H

Regarding substance, there just seems to be a great reluctance in the world, within society, to accept my apparent "telepathy", there seems to be a kind of "blackout" on this (apparent) phenomenon. I suppose it is an illusion to think you can change that overnight by just offering one thousand pounds or one thousand euros for a single strange phone call.

Originally Posted by Michel H

This is one thing that some "pseudo-skeptics" seem to have difficulty understanding. Even if some people know that you are intensely thinking (about) the word "Westminster" for example, they will not necessarily tell you so, and in the simple way that you would like. Basically, people say what they want to say, and they evaluate possible risks, what they perceive as advantages and disadvantages of possible responses.

Originally Posted by Michel H

It is important to understand that the participants' goal is not necessarily to make the life of the researcher easy.

(he posted this after giving a correct and credible answer in my latest telepathy test. Congratulations, cullennz)has now been relegated to the AAH section of the forum by the Censorship Team. I deplore this decision.

No it has not. It is still in the General Skepticism and the Paranormal Section where it belongs. Did you actually read the final post in that thread, and do you understand what it meant?

The exact same thing happens to every thread which gets too long! You are apparently the only one here who does not understand that, so your "telepathy" must have let you down. Again, or is that Still?

__________________"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Michel only considers answers that agree with delusions to be correct and credible.

Oh and he's 0/4 for detecting lies.

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

By the way, I have now found out that the recent and (apparently) good post by cullennz:

(he posted this after giving a correct and credible answer in my latest telepathy test. Congratulations, cullennz)
has now been relegated to the AAH section of the forum by the Censorship Team. I deplore this decision.

You could have just said you were lying, and pointed out that Michel didn't spot it.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

No actual tests for telepathy or thought broadcasting are really necessary, as there is nothing shown to test, your 'tests' only fulfill your need to perpetuate your belief in you broadcasting your thoughts.

In psychiatry, thought broadcasting is a term used to describe a delusion that one's thought are being broadcast out loud, so that others around him will be able to perceive them.

This article contains two obvious anomalies (errors): it says "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts", and it says "others around him", instead of "others around them", or "others around him/her".

I think it is reasonable to assume that these anomalies are reflections or manifestations of my "real broadcasting particularity". Presumably, they reflect a lack of self-confidence (of the author), and they are easy to interpret. Saying "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts" conveys an idea of aggressivity, by suggesting the thought emitter "has only one thought", and saying "others around him" suggests the thought transmitter is a male (which I am). The number of anomalies (2) might also be related to my birthday (22 February, or 22/2).

If you look at the the first sentence of the first version of the "Russell's teapot" article for example:

Quote:

Russell's teapot was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the claims of religion.

........I think it is reasonable to assume that these anomalies are reflections or manifestations of my "real broadcasting particularity". .......

No, that's not reasonable. You are adjusting reality to suit your viewpoint, again. Those were simple typos.

You cannot broadcast thoughts. No-one can. Do not accuse me of lying when I say that I have never received thoughts from anyone, and I have never, in particular, received thoughts from you. No-one on the planet ever has, however much you twist typos to mean exactly what you want them to mean.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Come on. Item (2) is way too obviously true, unless you really had twenty stitches. I've been to reunions.

Well my family comes from a tough neighborhood, In the local restaurant I sat down and had broken leg of lamb.

But in all seriousness since Michel failed, 2 was the lie, I have never visited England.

I did however get a few stitches at a Christmas gathering when a cousin who will remain unnamed had too much nog and got into an altercation with me.

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

Michel, would you want to know if it turned out you can't thought project? Or would you rather continue on deluding yourself that you can?

Conversely, myself and many others would surely be extremely interested if it turned out you could, but of course we would be highly skeptical. I would hate to delude myself into thinking you couldn't if in fact you could, that would be such a shame.

Given how truly amazing it would be if true (and to a lesser extent how silly/delusional it would be if false), surely you would want to figure this out once and for all? Why are you on some internet forum doing a rinky dink test that doesn't prove anything?

Come up with a scientifically valid study that would definitively prove or disprove your claim, and get on with it already. This test is a joke, why waste your time with it? It's really not that hard to set up a real study that would prove/disprove your claim. Just find a few people in real life who are also into woo that wouldn't be inclined to sabotage the test, perhaps pay them to participate, and run though hundreds of trials quickly and develop a large sample.

I think you're wasting your time with this silly test because it's a "can't fail if you don't try" type of thing. If this test proves nothing, it doesn't matter because you can just come up with excuses. But if it were a legit test, you actually have to open yourself up to the possibility of being wrong.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,985

Originally Posted by Michel H

This article contains two obvious anomalies (errors): it says "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts", and it says "others around him", instead of "others around them", or "others around him/her".

I think it is reasonable to assume that these anomalies are reflections or manifestations of my "real broadcasting particularity". Presumably, they reflect a lack of self-confidence (of the author), and they are easy to interpret. Saying "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts" conveys an idea of aggressivity, by suggesting the thought emitter "has only one thought", and saying "others around him" suggests the thought transmitter is a male (which I am). The number of anomalies (2) might also be related to my birthday (22 February, or 22/2).

No, I think that is utterly unreasonable. What I think is more reasonable is that "thought are" was corrected to "thoughts are" to make it gramatically correct, and that "him" was changed to "him/her" so as to avoid gender bias.

Everything you speculate on here is a further manifestation of your inability to interpret reality as anything other than confirmation of your wishful thinking. (Which some here have characterised as delusions. I am not qualified to make a psychiatric diagnosis.)
If you want to reclaim some kind of perspective, you really need to examine all possibilities, rather than this monomania (Again used in a lay definition) that everything is about you and your supposed special abilities.
And no, before you ask: I won't be taking any of your tests. At least, not until you achieve some kind of objectivity.

This article contains two obvious anomalies (errors): it says "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts", and it says "others around him", instead of "others around them", or "others around him/her".

I think it is reasonable to assume that these anomalies are reflections or manifestations of my "real broadcasting particularity". Presumably, they reflect a lack of self-confidence (of the author), and they are easy to interpret. Saying "one's thought" instead of "one's thoughts" conveys an idea of aggressivity, by suggesting the thought emitter "has only one thought", and saying "others around him" suggests the thought transmitter is a male (which I am). The number of anomalies (2) might also be related to my birthday (22 February, or 22/2).

If you look at the the first sentence of the first version of the "Russell's teapot" article for example:

But in all seriousness since Michel failed, 2 was the lie, I have never visited England.

I thought it was particularly amusing that Michel thought all of mine were lies, as actually they were all true.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

If I thought there was even a 1% chance I had the amazing ability of thought projection, I would devote all my free time to figuring out whether or not I could do it. If I could scientifically prove I had this ability, that would arguably be the most ground-breaking discovery in all human history. Why even delay this amazing discovery a day when it is so important?

It's kind of like if I had reason to believe there was a chance a treasure chest with 100billion in it was buried not too deep in my backyard. I know that if I devote enough time to digging, I will eventually find out for a fact whether it is there or not. Why would I not conduct a comprehensive digging effort to unearth the treasure as soon as possible? Why bother digging a little hole here or there that I wouldn't even expect to unearth anything? To delay this discovery would surely be a colossal blunder, and to never find out would be an even bigger blunder.

The way you describe your ability is such that it would be scientifically verifiable if only subjected to an actual valid scientific test (for example have a lie detector test to verify if someone intends to sabotage, and only accept participants that pass the test). There's really no excuse to not already know for a fact right now whether you can do it or not. One question you should ask yourself is not whether or not you have this ability, but if you did have this ability why has it not already been proven? Surely it can't be that you're too busy for something this important. Do you not appreciate the importance of this discovery? Are you just too lazy to take the necessary actions to get a real test? Do you deny that such a test could be conducted that could prove this? There's no excuse. I can easily think of explanations as to why it wouldn't be officially disproved yet if you in fact didn't have this ability and were just deluding yourself, but I don't understand how if you actually had this ability it wouldn't already be proven, or at the very least be in the process of doing a real study.

Just to clarify, the pseudo lie detector test you've done here is not even remotely scientific and appears to be highly unreliable. If it actually mattered whether or not someone intended to sabotage (or however you want to put it), and you wanted to filter those people out, you could do so effectively with a real lie detector test. It's a small price to pay for such a large discovery, and it would go a long way in helping prove your claim. Filtering out who you personally think is lying is just plain laughable from a scientific point of view.

If I could actually hear Michel H, I'd make a deal with him for a 50/50 split on the James Randi million dollar challenge. Why wouldn't I? I could use the cash.

And so would millions of others worldwide.

And there would be many times more who at least chatted about the shared experience of hearing some guy's thoughts. Social media would be crammed with inane chatter about whatever Michel had for lunch today. There would be worldwide interest in finding out who the thought broadcaster was and a considerable industry around finding ways to block out his intrusive thoughts. Every time Michel thought about his phone number, thousands of curious people would ring it.

But there isn't any of that. None of that exists. It is the dog that did not bark. And that simple truth is staring Michel in the face but he just ignores it as if it wasn't there.

Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way, These tests are designed to be way too fair.
What is needed is a totally lopsided test for Michel.

OK Michel I am think of one of these TWO numbers, Try to guess which one I have picked.

Is it:

A: 1

or

B: >>2<<

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-